It\u2019s the New Year, when many of us vow to kick-start our workouts. If you\u2019re a woman shopping for new gym gear, however, beware. Pink kit is everywhere, and it may leave you looking like an escapee from Barbie\u2019s Dream House.
The colour\u2019s sheer ubiquity only dawned on me recently while looking for some new trainers. In the shoe aisle of a major sporting goods retailer, I encountered a colour divide as drastic as a toy shop\u2019s. On the men\u2019s side, blue, black and splashes of neon yellow. On the women\u2019s side, a hot pink hellscape. I searched carefully for some non-pink shoes and then started to wonder. Was I in the kids\u2019 aisle?
If you don\u2019t believe me, consider these snapshots. At the time of writing, on JDSports.co.uk, 70 per cent of the Nike accessories specifically for women only come in pink. Just five products meant for women, a few bags, a cap and some head bands, eschew pink for other colours.
At the time of writing, nearly 70 per cent of the women\u2019s running shoes on Decathlon\u2019s website have pink on them, as do almost half of those featured on JohnLewis.com. Almost 60 per cent of the women\u2019s running clothes in Sports Direct\u2019s Karrimor line that are not black, white or grey are pink, or have pink trim (and that\u2019s not even including the Karrimor logo that often appears in pink).
What is going on? When I think pink, I think Power Rangers. My Little Pony. Peppa Pig. \u201cIt\u2019s a very infantilising colour,\u201d says sports sociologist Professor Cheryl Cooky of Purdue University, Indiana. \u201cIt\u2019s a colour we associate not simply with femininity, but with a kind of youthful femininity, a girlish femininity.\u201d
A selection of women-only Nike items available on JDSports.co.uk in December 2016. Photo: a collage of images from JDSports.co.uk
Even if not every women’s sports item is pink, it\u2019s hard to argue that the colour is not overrepresented. Why are brands and retailers dressing adult women like pretty, pretty princesses?
There\u2019s no denying that pink is a political colour. Just look at the furore raised recently when an English Football Association document intended to get girls into sport recommended providing them with \u201cpink whistles\u201d, as well as pink water bottles, pink shin pads, pink gloves and pink hairbands. \u201cWe aren’t brainless Barbie dolls. We don’t all like the same colour (pink),\u201d one ten-year-old footballer called Grace wrote in response.
The movement to end \u201cpinkification\u201d of products for girls has been gaining momentum for years, with campaigns like Pinkstinks and Let Toys be Toys convincing children\u2019s retailers to give up their \u201cpink for girls\u201d, \u201cblue for boys\u201d signage and marketing. But what about grown women? Are we happy to accept our pink water bottles and hairbands?
This isn\u2019t just a matter of colours. As with toy shops, it\u2019s about suggesting, even subconsciously, which activities are appropriate for which gender. John Lewis sells own-brand hand weights , for instance, which progress from bubblegum pink to purple to grey to navy as they get bigger, implying that your femininity drains away as you lift heavier weights. If you doubt that this colour-coding carries any meaning, imagine if it were the other way around, and the heaviest weights were baby pink. (John Lewis responds that \u201cthere is not a conscious link between the colours and the weight\u201d.)
On the JD Sports site, meanwhile, there\u2019s a \u201cshop by activity\u201d tab, which, for women, offers \u201cRunning, Gym, Yoga, Spin, Cardio\u201d. For men, there\u2019s \u201cFootball, Basketball, Tennis, Running, Rugby\u201d. At the time of writing, footballs are included in the men\u2019s accessories section, but not the women\u2019s. What would the young footballer Grace have to say about that?
When I contact stores to ask why they stock so many pink sports items, the reasons vary. John Lewis says that \u201cto a large extent\u201d their colours are \u201cpredetermined\u201d by suppliers. Decathlon says its palette of pink and turquoise is a feminine version of the red and blue it uses for men: \u201cOriginally, [the colours of sportswear for men] were [mainly derived from] flags and blazons. Products intended for a male public. Blue, white, red dominate flags and thus became the basic (basal) colours of performance. To widen the target to the feminine market, the pink and turquoise replaced the red and the blue.\u201d
It adds: \u201cPink and turquoise are sport colours [used for] ten years in Decathlon. After black and white, which are the more basic colours, blue and red (so turquoise and pink for women) were the two other colours added in our ranges.\u201d
Both Decathlon and John Lewis, however, also point to sales as a driving force. While John Lewis\u2019 most popular sportswear is black and grey, pink and particularly purple have recently \u201cgenerated great interest and sales\u201d, a spokesperson says. And Beno\u00eet Buronfosse, the brand design manager of Decathlon sub-brand Kalenji, notes that, based on a decade of sales figures, \u201cpink is the preferred colour for women!\u201d
JD Sports and Sports Direct declined to comment.
Sports industry analyst Matt Powell , who writes the blog Sneakernomics for Forbes, backs this up. \u201cBrands don\u2019t make many products that no one wants to buy,\u201d he says. \u201cTough way to stay in business.\u201d
But if pink is popular with women, there\u2019s still the question of why. After all, it wasn\u2019t until the 1980s that pink became associated with femininity, according to historian Jo Paoletti, a professor at the University of Maryland and author of the culture blog Pink is for Boys. \u201cThis stuff is culturally constructed, it\u2019s artificial, it changes over time, it\u2019s different in different cultures. So the idea that women have a natural desire to dress in a certain way is just wrong,\u201d she says.
To be sure, some people just look good in the colour. But Purdue\u2019s Professor Cooky suggests there may be something else. \u201cSports in most societies are still male-dominated,\u201d she says. \u201cFor some female athletes and fans, wearing pink may be a way to reassert a notion of conventional femininity in those highly masculinised spaces.\u201d
In other words, if you\u2019re a woman in the sports world, you may feel the need to wear things that shout, \u201cI\u2019m not a dude!\u201d The stereotype of the manly sportswoman clearly weighs on the mind of many female athletes. In a day and age when Serena and Venus Williams can be referred to publicly as » the Williams brothers » by a member of the International Olympic Committee, no wonder active women are reaching for hyper-feminine signifiers.
Still, there is evidence that not all women want all pink, all the time. Take the USA\u2019s National Football League. Around the year 2000, the NFL entered the women\u2019s apparel market. (Women, it turns out, account for nearly half of NFL fans.) At first, the NFL focused on pink products that could stand out on the shop floor. \u201cAt the time it was maybe the easiest way to communicate that we had moved into that space,\u201d says Rhiannon Madden, the NFL\u2019s director of apparel.
Since then, however, the NFL has broadening the range to include team colours in green, yellow, red and brown. «As we got smarter and engaged more with our fans, and learned more about what they were looking for, we expanded our offering,\u201d says Maddon. The switch, and an ad campaign in 2012 to promote it, resulted in a triple-digit growth in sales.
The NFL\u2019s early approach, common in the sporting industry, has come to be known as \u201cshrink it and pink it\u201d \u2013 the practice of downsizing a men\u2019s product and slapping a \u201cgirly\u201d colour on it. And while many companies have come a long way from \u201cshrink and pink\u201d, there\u2019s still room for improvement, says Powell. \u201cThe female consumer has been horribly underserved by the sports brands. There are not enough women-specific products,\u201d he says, adding that companies need to focus more on products that will, \u201chelp female athletes perform at a higher level\u201d.
In the meantime, it would be nice if sports retailers would offer us more non-pink options. Using the colour may, like the FA\u2019s pink whistles, simply be an attempt to include women in sports. But, as Professor Cooky points out, it can also alienate those who \u201cmay not wish to subscribe to that sort of girly colour palette\u201d. One such woman, a friend in her early 30s, told me how at the two triathlons she has raced in, the women were handed pink swimming caps. Her reaction? \u201cGive them to the dudes!\u201d
Take a break from the remaining Strawberry Delights abandoned at the bottom of your forlorn Quality Street tin to spare a thought for Sarah Vine this bank holiday.
The poor journalist (and wife of Michael Gove) has just confessed in a Mail Online column that she has spent the last day shedding tears, so many tears, for today’s young women. Why? Not because (alas! alack!) she has taken Gove off the market, but because many of them (women, that is) went outside on New Year’s Eve and \u2013 those of a sensitive disposition might want to look away now \u2013 got drunk.
Under the headline «Pictures that make me weep for today’s young women», Vine opines that it is «more depressing» to see photographs of drunk young women \u2013 photographs, by the way, helpfully provided to outrage and definitely not, never, ever, to titillate Mail readers \u2013 than it is to see those of men.
Your mole notices Vine offers little explanation for why she finds images of drunk women more offensive than seeing men in the same state, but surely it cannot be that she feels women should be held to higher standards of decorum and decency than their male counterparts? That, after all, would be sexism, and if there is one thing that Vine is not \u2013 while she weeps out her caring, heartfelt thoughts about women next to candid upskirt pictures of them celebrating a night out \u2013 it’s sexist.
That is to say nothing of the fact that the pictures that Vine features are, for the most part, not that bad at all. Women helping their friends to walk and fighting off males should invoke feelings of pride, not prudish moral outrage at the fact they happened to do it while \u2013 gasp! \u2013 showing off their bare legs.
Furthermore \u2013 as your mole embodied while catching up on Sherlock instead of popping down to the local Public Burrow last night \u2013 binge-drinking in youths is actually at an all-time low , rendering Vine’s sentiments about «Tony Blair\u2019s brave new world of 24-hour drinking» completely redundant.
Further-further-more, substance abuse researchers for Glasgow University have also revealed that despite the fact twice as many men die from alcohol misuse than women every year, the media focuses disproportionately on women. «We found a strong emphasis on the deterioration of women\u2019s physical appearance and attractiveness due to alcohol,» they wrote.
And this, dear readers, is the crux of the issue. A woman looks «out of control» if her hair is unbrushed or her dress slips slightly, while a man would have to go to far more extreme lengths to be identified by appearance as a problem drinker. The double standards are ridiculous, and also damaging \u2013 the media misleads us by focusing on binge-drinking women, meaning that men who drink dangerously may struggle to identify their behaviour as problematic.
Still, it is nice to know that depsite the world-shaking events of 2016, the UK’s moral compass is still able to align with the earth’s magnetic field and point us all in the right direction. Which is to say, backwards.<\/p>\n

\n

\nSimilarity rank: 0.1\n<\/div>\n

Sentiment rank: -0.7<\/div>\n

\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n